An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Fed End Game

Space is neat

People are rightly outraged about the AIG bonuses [um, why not the Merrill Lynch ones that were far bigger and possibly involved outright fraud?] but the amounts involved in that are tiny compared to the size of our problems. I would agree that the bonuses themselves far outweigh their monetary value because they are reflective of an insular, entitlement mentality that has captured the Street and the Treasury Department. Until the culture has been broken we will continue to see a mess.

Anyway, forget all that for a second.

An hour ago the Fed announced it was buying another $750 billion in mortgage backed assets and will start purchasing long term treasuries, the first installment at $300 billion. In short, this is the long awaited “monetization of debt” that people have been expecting, or in other words, they are just printing money to simultaneously try to keep interest rates low and inflation expectations high (those are contradictory I’ll get to it in a second) with the hope that asset values will increase. Ben Bernanke gave a famous speech where he said deflation was impossible in a fiat system because they could just do a “helicopter drop” or in other words, print money. The idea was proposed by Milton Friedman as a way to avoid a depression.

This is potentially the start of the biggest gamble that the US government has taken with its currency since moving off specie and may have profound consequences for decades.

So the idea is that the treasury prints money, the Fed uses that to buy long term bonds to keep down interest rates and encourage investment, and then the money goes into circulation. Theoretically that money will cause inflation and — coupled with low interest rates — people will stop saving money and start buying stuff, getting out of the deflationary spiral and causing universal bliss. There are a few minor problems with this theory.

First of all, it’s a game of chicken. If inflation is going to rise then you don’t want to have bonds, so you’d sell them and cause the yields to rise. The more people that sell, the more the Fed has to buy to keep yields down, meaning the more money has to be printed, meaning the more inflation expectations will rise…etc. This can cause “embedded inflation expectations” which means that people will stop paying attention to reality and cause rampant inflation. This is what happened during the 70s, which ironically is what Friedman won the Nobel prize for, although the embedded inflation expectations in the 70s were due to an external resource shock rather than monetary policy per se. So then at some point the Fed has to stop and raise interest rates enormously to stop inflation expectations. If it does it too soon, well we’d still have a Depression (worse than not having the intervention) and if it does it too late, then our currency would be completely devalued against either other currencies or real goods (if all currencies are devaluing). When is that right time? Well no one has ever successfully used this, so no one knows. I’d argue that there is no right time because they operate on different timescales, and therefore it’s impossible to thread the needle…but their models say differently.

Secondly, if there is a lot of inflation, that needs to go out into wage inflation or else everyone without a lot of assets will just become a lot poorer. To say that our society doesn’t have the structure to have wage inflation take hold is putting it mildly. Also, as my post a few months ago mentioned inflation won’t inflate asset values evenly. Even if inflation takes hold, then housing still won’t increase much in value, but basic materials will skyrocket. It’s likely we’d have all the problems we have today but that it’d harder for most people to afford necessities. The banks still won’t lend very much because people are too indebted, but now the rich market makers will have lots of money so bubbles will form in lots of random asset classes.

In short, by trying to avoid a depression, they are punishing savers and rewarding debtors, and doing it in a way that makes the people that messed up have more wealth.

As the Wikipedia article on the Helicopter Drop states:

Milton Friedman suggested that a monetary authority can escape a liquidity trap by bypassing financial intermediaries [in this case we can't because they have too much power] to give money directly to consumers or businesses [or large investors, which is what this is]. This is referred to as a money gift or as helicopter money. The term helicopter money is meant to portray the image of a central banker dropping money on people from a helicopter. Political considerations make it difficult for a monetary authority to grant the money gift, because individuals and firms not receiving free money will exert political pressure. The monetary authority must act covertly to give gift money to specific individuals or firms without appearing to give money away.

In essence it is a transfer of wealth far greater and more insidious than any tax increase and in the present environment will most likely be borne the most on the poor and middle class. As my friend succinctly put it after I described the theory (before stating my personal opinion): “so they are, in practice, devaluing all industry and commerce which hasn’t failed.”

There is a chance that they will start down this path and blink because it’s too big, and we’ll have a very fast Depression as they pull the plug and give up. This is literally the last tool they have and if it fails then there is nothing left. There is also a chance that they will continue to do the policy until inflation gets wildly out of control, threatening the security of the US dollar (especially if China decides to sell off its treasuries) or fiat currency in general (the UK started something similar and most countries will follow). This is why gold shot up a ton today. I think there is a small chance that it’ll work as intended, for the reasons I detailed in my series in the fall (here, here, here).

Don’t get me wrong, the steps that they have announced thus far are not large enough to really change things one way or the other. This is merely a $300 billion (well $1 trillion with mortgages) test balloon to try and influence people’s behavior. Of course this is like the 50th thing that they’ve done to manage expectations and those have all failed, and at this point people are being tricked for shorter and shorter periods of time, so the real question is what they will do over the course of the next year when the economy fails to pick up.

If you think we’ve seen a wild ride so far, just know that we ain’t seen nothing yet. This is going to make the moves in the bond and currency markets even worse, which will cause extreme volatility and lead to more failures. Even if the policy eventually works, it’s going to shake the system to the breaking point…whether it breaks and falls apart or rights itself at the last instant, I don’t really know; the entire environment is getting too ahistorical to try and predict. I for one am desperately hoping that people across the spectrum will wake up and start demanding policies that will preserve the integrity of the government, even though that means deflation and a depression. We can work through that, but it’s less clear how to work through the other.

  • elrod
    Interesting comment. I thought the same thing - this is a very big move. Of course Wall Street loves it. But happens to the dollar? What happens to those who hold US debt?
  • Wheee!!!

    There are two sides to induced inflation... on the one side you need it if you're trying to encourage economic growth. People won't hold on to their dollars if they are losing value each day, so they spend it or invest it.

    On the other side, inflation saps the wealth of people who don't have enough money to invest, or aren't going to see increases in their wages any time soon.

    It seems to me that most Americans, now more than before the current crisis, are in that category of people who aren't capable of investing because we're in debt and aren't likely to see wage increases because of a depressed job market.
  • mikkel
    I think that's putting it mildly. Which goes back to the point about social acrimony that I've been talking about off and on. Right now people just barely support things because there is still the hope that they lead to recovery, but if inflation starts eating into everything and makes the debt problem worse then I see large scale opt outs because people will have little to lose.
  • mikkel,
    It obviously depends on the strength of the effects of an inflationary policy. If people can't afford gas or food on what used to be modest pay, then I think the social contract could break down. But rather than have people marching for dissolution of the government, you'll have them clamoring for essentially socialist policies.

    People aren't going to forget that when times got tough, we emptied the treasury and gave it to Wall Street. They'll wonder why they can't get in on some of that action to pay for their shelter, food and medicine.
  • AustinRoth
    I said it before - the worst is yet to come. The truly foolish monetary moves of the Obama Administration are going to prolong (not shorten) the coming Depression (assuming that you do not believe we are already in one). The Pork Bill, and its coiming sucessors, will drive the debt higher and higher, and the "monetization of debt" (great phrase), will drive an inflationary period, followed by excessive interest rates and a deflationary period. And the demonization of business in general continues unabated as well.

    Sorry to sound so negative and paranoid, but if my goal was to completely trash the economic underpinnings of a country and to inflame existing class-warfare tendencies, with an ultimate goal of replacing the entire system with a State-based system, you couldn't do a better job than we are seeing now.
  • AustinRoth
    btw - it isn't only Republicans who are beholden to Big Business: http://cryptogon.com/?p=7362
  • mikkel
    Based on the numbers I find it hard to believe that inflation won't rise to that level if they do this enough to stop deflationary forces. I agree that people will press for collectivist solutions, but it's impossible to know how much pressure will be put on the government and when things get bad. If 1932 had instead had happened 1 year into Hoover's presidency and he still wasn't responsive, who knows what would have happened.

    Quite frankly it's why businesses and capitalists should support the government taking over and dismantling the financial system piecemeal. Getting ahead of the curve in a way that would get rid of the deadwood and have the best chance of preserving productive businesses is the best way to avoid more straightforward socialism.
  • mikkel
    While Obama bears responsibility because he's the one in charge, I don't think any other mainstream politician would do anything differently. The policies are designed entirely to preserve the status quo and moreover, to delay pain and spread it out over time instead of being experienced in grand shocks that politicians will get blamed for. There isn't the widespread recognition of the problem and until people are willing to embrace a downturn in lifestyle (and those that have any spare resources at all help their friends and neighbors) then we'll keep going down this path.
  • CStanley
    the best chance of preserving productive businesses is the best way to avoid more straightforward socialism.


    So I guess Bush was speaking correctly when he said he had to dismantle capitalism in order to save it.
  • mikkel
    Capitalism is just a system for distributing resources amongst the populace...it has little to do with the financial sector. There is a correlation between the make up of the financial sector and the economic system, just as their is a correlation between financial sector growth and economic growth, but they aren't analogous. Canada avoided most of the mess (so far) and has a stronger capitalist economy than us at present because its government was much more heavily involved in regulating the financial sector and is more aggressive in intervening to make sure they are functioning in specific core markets.

    I did have a grammatical mistake because I my mind wandered, I meant that stepping in to nationalize the banks is the best chance of preserving other companies, which in turn will lessen pressure for real socialism, i.e. taking over production of industry.

    If the government just let everything fail then the whole system would collapse and the economy would shut down as businesses couldn't use credit (unless the Fed started doing everything directly). The only other alternatives are to continue propping them up or do what they are legally required to do, which is to take over and shut down insolvent institutions, sell off the good assets and figure out how to assign losses to the bad.
  • CStanley
    Yeah, that makes sense.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Mikkel:

    First, I am not an economist. And perhaps because of that, I do not totally digest or understand all the nuances of the economic crisis we are in as you describe, and all the reasons you provide as to why we got into such a mess and are not getting out of it.

    But, more important---and I apologize beforehand if such nuggets are in your article, and I missed them---I would really appreciate hearing from someone who is obviously an expert, in layman terms, what we, the people, the financial institutions, and the administration/Congress ought to be doing differently to get our country out of this mess.

    I am being very genuine in asking this, because sure as hell (pardon my language) I have not heard any alternate plans, except for "cutting taxes", from any other experts, critics and pundits.

    And, if lowering taxes right now will solve our problems, please don't hesitate to tell me so and how.

    Thanking you in advance,

    Dorian de Wind
  • mikkel
    Dorian, I just put up a post that does exactly that.
    http://themoderatevoice.com/27280/why-the-toxic...
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Thanks. Going there right now

    Dorian
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC